MESSAGE
| DATE | 2001-12-23 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [hangout] A Cd's Natural Price is $2.00
|
I think your not correct here,and I'd like to here an example of what your
trying to express before condemming the idea entirely. But clearly if I
right a book on Death, only the expressions of that book are copyrighted,
and not anything more.
>> My rights on my book about death cover only my
> book and the exact phrases I have crafted about the subject, in no way
> can these rights cover the whole subject (or idea) of death.
> The most important point is that the European states give these
> rights *only* to an individual, a living breathing human being (and I
> read up on this a bit after my last mails to make sure I wasn't too far
> off the mark).
No human being should have exclussive control of published works beyound a
limited time and limited context.
> This human can make the ultimate choice of how his creation can be
> shared or used by society.
What gives them that right? They live and enjoy culture but refuse to
participate. The hell with that.
> If I write a book and want it printed in only four copies, in gold
> with leather binding, that's my perogative.
No it's not. If you sell one of those copies, I can make copies for
personal use. But even more to the point, that is exactly the type of
behavior not covered by copyright since copyright's sole purpose is to
make more works available to the public. REMOVAL of works fromt he
public, and selective distribution, IS the evil that we are now trying to
overcome.
> The GPL within present copyright law creating a frame work where the
> wish of the original authors can be preserved.
The GPL has nothing to do with this conversation. It's red hearing. The
GPL uses copyright to assure works stay in public distribution, which is
the pupose copyright was supposed to origianly solve. Copyright which
gives indivuals exclussive control of works as a RIGHT, is fundementally
bad. It's a rotten apple.
>
> > In a natural state, idea are shared freely without an constraint.
>
> Yes, I agree. But ideas are separate from creations.
No they aren't. All ideas are creative. All creations are ideas.
> Patent are supposed to cover ideas,
Patents are SUPPOSED to cover invetions...which is another form of a
creation which is a design for a new device.
> The copyright's role should be greatly reduced.
Well here we agree. The first thing we need to do is end to automatic
copyright of every written and spoken word, which litterely makes it
ILLEGAL to hold a phone conversation, let along a mailing list.
> > It is what we should accept as the basis of nature of
> > culture...universaly shareable, and copyable.
> >
> > If an artist doesn't make money on something after 30 years of
> > publication, who cares. If he crafted somethign real it would be
> > broken and used up already.
>
> Most creators make things so that others will enjoy them. No novelist
> attacks a younger novelist from borrowing from his style, rather the
> novelist is proud to start a trend.
Well - it used to be that way. But the works themselves are the issue.
Reuse of previously published works is criticile for a free and
Capitilaist society.
> Again if the decision is forced to be in the hands of the individual
> human creator I am happier.
I'm not. I've seen enough individuals who would selfishly rewrite history
before allowing their work to be exploited by others. That's unhealth and
an unfair burden on the public.
> I have faith in most individuals.
Yes - buty not to give them life and death say over published works.
> > Does a steel worker get rights to the results of his labor after a
> > pay check?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > So why make any other exceptions?
> >
> In reading up on the European Law....
> I had a discussion with a French lawyer a few years back and she
> opened my eyes to the beauty of individual control over creations (she
> works mostly for artists).
Think of it again... it's a death wish to culture.
> I mean the right to bear arms in the US poses all sorts of problems in
> my opinion.
Read that one too, it's not just a right to bear arms, Eric Raymond be
damned.
> Why shouldn't one have the right to control what becomes of one's
> creations?
Because it's an unfair burden on the public.
Ruben
--
__________________________
Brooklyn Linux Solutions
__________________________
http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting
http://www.brooklynonline.com - For the love of Brooklyn
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www.nyfairuse.org - The foundation of Democracy
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and
articles from around the net
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/mp3/hooked.mp3 - Spring is coming....
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown Brooklyn....
1-718-382-5752
____________________________
New Yorker Linux Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
|
|
